Sanitized labels cause people to behave measurably more cruelly

Evidence

Language shapes the perception of events and the thought patterns on which people base many of their actions. The personal and social acceptability of given activities, therefore, can differ markedly depending on what those activities are called. Euphemistic machinations are used widely to detach and depersonalize doers from harmful activities (Lutz, 1987). Cloaking detrimental activities in euphemisms can be a powerful weapon. For example, people behave much more cruelly when assaultive actions are given a sanitized label than when they are called aggression (Diener, Dineen, Endresen, Beaman, & Fraser, 1975). — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 366

Categorization

• XREF: Links to how policy language (‘Islamic extremism’, ‘security measures’) sanitizes discrimination — connects to author of ‘The Reluctant Fundamentalist’ era discourse and to Cooper’s social-conservatism claims. — connects to: Labeling things beautiful destroys their perceived beauty — Freeman Tilden, Interpreting Our Heritage, 506; Dehumanizing labels and informal lax rules turn control organs into destructive machines; Labeling harmful acts euphemistically increases how cruelly people behave (+1 more)
• DEEPTHINKING: Load-bearing experimental evidence that a rename changes actual behavior, not just attitudes — dense with implication for how institutional vocabulary governs conduct.
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 366